Aug 3, 2012

DRUGS DON’T KILL PEOPLE – PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE…WITH DRUGS

As much as the "Gun Nuts" assert that guns don’t kill people
any more than forks make people fat, one would assume they could also agree with the legalization of drugs.

In my experiences, this is rarely the case. Which is not to
say there aren’t the odd 2nd Amendment yahoos that would agree with
the concept, but I can’t often find them. In fact, the pro-firearm individuals
I encounter seem to be the same people who want to outlaw every drug
from Marijuana to Muscatel.

I don’t get it. The same argument applies. The drugs don’t take themselves. They don’t
crawl into the mouths or veins of the unsuspecting. So why all the restrictions?

To the NRA cowboys, the thought of jailing a meth-lab
chemist should be as preposterous as arresting a machinist for making a rifle
barrel. And yet, it’s not. There’s no hue and cry. No demonstrations. Nothing.

On the subject of gun control, these people scream out terms like, liberty,
self determination, oppression, and privacy invasion. But for drug control,
they are mostly tacit.

Federal rules for gun ownership are vehemently vilified as
indecent government control, but government control over when you can have a
beer, when you can dial your cell phone, how high your pants have to be
pulled up at the mall, or where, and when you, can ogle at a stripper, gets zero concern.

Double standard.

Look – I’m not against guns. I’ve always felt that, in a
perfect world, everyone should have a gun. Trick is, this IS NOT a perfect
world. You got your psychos out there, your jilted boyfriends with a taste for
vengeance, your deluded fanboys with orange hair and twisted Batman fixations.

It sucks, but it’s true. And we just have to live with the fact
that if you want guns, you gotta deal with the jack asses who abuse them.

Here is another argument that makes no sense: "If you take away
the guns from the people, only the criminals will have them."

Well, true… but NOT true.

The cops will still have them - and the military. (And last
I heard, criminals are mostly “people” …aside
from the odd extortionist bear and safecracking wombats.)But for arguments sake, let’s say that ONLY “criminals” could go to a gun store and buy a gun...?

What are the chances any gun salesman woul say,

“Okay buddy, as long as you’re NOT a law-abiding
citizen, because then I’d have to tell you to go pound salt.” (Could this really happen? Gun right gurus would have you believe it might.)

But say it COULD. So then you would only have two kinds of people with guns. The
cops/military (who should have them) and... the riff raff.
Well, to me it’s like color
coding the bad guys.
I.e., consider the following litmus test:
Does the person have a gun? Yes? Is he a police
officer? No. – BINGO, he’s under arrest.

Simpler criteria at some level, isn’t it?

I’m mostly kidding, but the original argument is still weak.
What’s wrong with knowing who the criminals are? This is not even touching on the concept that
having a gun is one thing, but having a military-grade, rapid fire, death
cannon is entirely another.

And then there's the argument that the military and the cops having the
only guns, or better guns, is a danger to our freedom.

A valid point…. IN THE 18th CENTURY!

Nowadays, taking up arms against the police or military would be parallel to the coups in Zimbabwe.

Seriously? Do we really think we’ll have to start shooting
the police? Is this an actual concern for you deluded bastards? After all, it goes
on in Germany, France, and Norway soooo often, it’s bound to happen here right?
Give your head a shake.

Paranoia is a sad basis for a system of government - but
have at it, you bloodthirsty bullet-heads. I’m not really interested in changing your
mind…